Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1036 (PNJ)

J. K. Sedha v. State Of Haryana

2007-05-02

S.D.ANAND

body2007
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. In the present petition, which the petitioners have filed for quashment of the impugned prosecution, the following apparent facts may be noticed. 2. The sample under reference was seized by the Quality Control Inspector, Fatehabad on 9.7.1999. The seizure was made from out of relevant article bearing batch No. B007 which indicated the manufacturing date to be October, 1998 and the expiry date to be September, 1999. Vide report dated 9.7.1999, the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Sirsa opined that it was the case of mis-branding as the sample did not conform to its active ingredients and the contents of the active ingredients were found to be 71.10% instead of 75% WP. A copy of the analysis report was forwarded to the petitioners vide letter No. 3596 dated 16.9.1999. It was received by the petitioners on 25.9.1999. In response thereto, the petitioners sent a letter dated 30.9.1999 requesting for the re-analysis of the second sample. The complaint was ultimately filed in the Court on 10.4.2000. 3. The averment made by the petitioners in para 3 of the petition to the effect that they received a copy of the analysis report on 30.9.1999, was not specifically controverted in the corresponding para of the reply. It would be relevant to notice hereunder the following order passed by Honble K.S. Garewal, J. on 25.3.2003 while issuing notice of motion : "Notice of motion for 29.5.2003. Learned counsel contends that the sample was due to expire in September 1999 and the petitioner got too little time to claim the second analysis as he received the report of first analysis only on September 25, 1999. Further proceedings shall remain stayed. Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Haryana, should be present in court to explain the faulty investigation and slip shod prosecution. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned AAG, Haryana." Thereafter, the Secretary, Agriculture, Haryana appeared in person and assured the Court that the concerned Officer will be asked to remain conscious in future. That assurance was noticed by Honble Jasbir Singh, J. in the course of order dated 27.5.2004. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned AAG, Haryana." Thereafter, the Secretary, Agriculture, Haryana appeared in person and assured the Court that the concerned Officer will be asked to remain conscious in future. That assurance was noticed by Honble Jasbir Singh, J. in the course of order dated 27.5.2004. 4 As per the provisions of Section 29 of Insecticides Act, 1968 , an accused in a such like case is entitled to exercise his option to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad within a period of 28 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the analysis report. In the present case a copy of the report was received by the petitioner on 25.9.1999. The shelf-life of the article was to expire on 30.9.1999. The complaint was filed in the Court on 10.4.2000 long after the expiry of the shelf-life of the sample. It is obvious that there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the concerned official in the launching of the prosecution in the Court. Further, it is also apparent that there was delay of about 9 days in the despatch of the copy of the analysis report to the petitioners. 5. It may also be noticed that, as evident from the perusal of the impugned complaint, there is no averment made in the course thereof viz-a-viz the petitioners i.e. the manufacturers. 6. The bottom line of observations made in the course of preceding two paras is that the prosecution launched in the present matter must fail on account of delay on the part of the concerned official. The delay which occurred in the context, for no fault of the petitioner-accused, disabled the petitioner from exercising his right to get the sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. The concerned authorities may consider the feasibility of examining the matter qua fixture of accountability for the prosecution having been rendered infructuous. I would leave that matter to the discretion of the competent authority. 7. At the end of the day, the only irresistible inference deducible from the facts obtaining on the file is that this petition has to be allowed. It is so ordered accordingly. The complaint, Annexure P2, and the proceedings taken in consequence thereof, shall stand quashed.